Jump to content

Combat Box by Red Flight


Recommended Posts

VR-DriftaholiC

Any way to allow us to spectate the area we died just a little longer after death? Watching that sortie pan out is always good fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
haluter
1 hour ago, driftaholic said:

Any way to allow us to spectate the area we died just a little longer after death? Watching that sortie pan out is always good fun.

 

The problem that brings is that it increases the chances of people giving information to their wingmen on voice comms they would otherwise not be aware of, and can be considered as an exploit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
3 hours ago, driftaholic said:

Any way to allow us to spectate the area we died just a little longer after death? Watching that sortie pan out is always good fun.

 

2 hours ago, haluter said:

 

The problem that brings is that it increases the chances of people giving information to their wingmen on voice comms they would otherwise not be aware of, and can be considered as an exploit.

 

I haven't seen a setting for this, I think it's whatever the game defaults to. If you bail out and are hanging in your chute, that will let you stick around longer (but of course it's dangerous -- people can shoot the parachute to stop you calling the fight to your wingmates).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alonso,

 

It doesn't take Einstein to check the stats to see that a lot of air kills are generated within less than a minute of an objective being attacked, indeed, your previous comments about the Tempest types perhaps speak volumes!

 

Anyway, as per the old SOW CLOD server, is there any way of not exposing the targets to the other side, or perhaps limiting when certain objectives appear to the other side to at least allow the attacking side an opportunity to attack?

 

I certainly don't want to make the server unplayable when numbers are low, but watching guys just circle objectives on the bases that they are 'protecting it' can make a game very boring for those on their own and attacking.

 

Anyway, just a thought!

 

Regards

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
-SF-Disarray

So you want to hide the objectives that are supposed to be defended from the team that is supposed to be defending them? Perhaps I'm just being dense, but that doesn't make any sense. Is it that the ground side of the Army isn't talking to the air side of the Army now? Did the plane guys tell the tank guys the armor is making them look fat? I know! The arty guys told the bombs that they are nerds! That's it, right?

 

In all seriousness, though, I don't think this will change much. Instead of CAPing the targets you will probably see more people CAPing the spawn points to the limit of the rules and there will probably be people that cross the limit more regularly. People congregate at the targets because there is a reasonable expectation of a fight there. If they can't find it at the targets they are going to go to the next best best place where they will find something to shoot, the spawns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_KW

He does have a point in the sense that the defenders rarely knew exactly what the enemies were targeting before it was struck.  Of course the flip side is that radar ground control was VERY heavily used in late war Europe on both sides which made finding the enemies much easier.

 

It would be interesting if you could have a series of targets only visible to the attackers with the defenders seeing a large CAP/Defend area that covered these targets.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
9 hours ago, Haza said:

Anyway, as per the old SOW CLOD server, is there any way of not exposing the targets to the other side, or perhaps limiting when certain objectives appear to the other side to at least allow the attacking side an opportunity to attack?

 

Didn't take Alonzo long to shoot me down when I suggested it.

 

Want to find out where to attack? Join the wrong coalition when you join and take a screenshot. 

 

I thought this was a potentially fun idea too!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Didn't take Alonzo long to shoot me down when I suggested it.

 

Want to find out where to attack? Join the wrong coalition when you join and take a screenshot. 

 

I thought this was a potentially fun idea too!

Pictured, Alonzo: 

nofun.jpg.6798a52cf4244a4323ccf679d298f953.jpg

/I kid, he makes a good point

I think that there's already an element of uncertainty about where the enemy will attack due to the number of available targets, but in reality most people will go to the nearest target to attack, and with the new DM it is necessary usually to make repeated attacks to roll a target, so it is hard 

The wide area targets seen in some maps are a better remedy for that than CAP areas. Everyone knows the area the attacks take place but no the exact location. Those present a challenge to the attacker as well, as they have to spot and attack the targets over a wide area, rather than drop on a concentrated target area.

Mobile convoys also present a similar situation. Any aircraft looking to defend or attack the convoy must find it along its route.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Birdman

Maybe do something similar to the allied bridgehead on the Ludendorff bridge map (cluster of targets in a wide-ish area) and a zone shown on the map?

 

It "dilutes" the CAP concentration a bit for the attackers but it remains risky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo

Unfortunately when you first join the server there is no timer/penalty for changing sides, so you can click around and see what's going on from both sides' perspectives. Even mid-map it's only a 60 second penalty to change sides. I've seen this used to look at player spawn counts on each field to determine where a large opposing force was taking off from, in order to guess at probable targets and then intercept them. At the moment we have to assume that any information on the map is available to both sides.

 

That said, there are a couple of ways to give the sides asymmetric information or make things more dynamic:

  • You can use in-game messages to give one side text warnings/notifiers. We do this on Mitchell's Men to say where the bombers are going to attack, and we have them report their progress all along the route. Friendly pilots can see the in-game message when flying and get a bit more info on the location than the enemy.
  • We're working on a map that includes reconnaissance of targets, so they only show up and enable on the map once a specific "recon plane" overflies the objective for a certain amount of time. The map has 6 possible target locations per side for the recon targets, with 3 active for any mission run, giving (er, math...) 12 choose 6 = 924 possible configurations. Once a recon'd target is revealed both sides can see it on the map, but if the recon plane misses the objective or is shot down while trying to do the recon, the target remains off the map and deactivated.

 

Edit: And of course what RedKestrel mentions about wide-area targets. I like those, we should have those in more maps I think.

Edited by Alonzo
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
10 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Unfortunately when you first join the server there is no timer/penalty for changing sides, so you can click around and see what's going on from both sides' perspectives. Even mid-map it's only a 60 second penalty to change sides. I've seen this used to look at player spawn counts on each field to determine where a large opposing force was taking off from, in order to guess at probable targets and then intercept them. At the moment we have to assume that any information on the map is available to both sides.

 

That said, there are a couple of ways to give the sides asymmetric information or make things more dynamic:

  • You can use in-game messages to give one side text warnings/notifiers. We do this on Mitchell's Men to say where the bombers are going to attack, and we have them report their progress all along the route. Friendly pilots can see the in-game message when flying and get a bit more info on the location than the enemy.
  • We're working on a map that includes reconnaissance of targets, so they only show up and enable on the map once a specific "recon plane" overflies the objective for a certain amount of time. The map has 6 possible target locations per side for the recon targets, with 3 active for any mission run, giving (er, math...) 12 choose 6 = 924 possible configurations. Once a recon'd target is revealed both sides can see it on the map, but if the recon plane misses the objective or is shot down while trying to do the recon, the target remains off the map and deactivated.

 

Edit: And of course what RedKestrel mentions about wide-area targets. I like those, we should have those in more maps I think.

 

More moving convoys would be grand too. Especially supply type stuff. I think something fun for the blue side to do is disrupt that redball express. Maybe red can enjoy hitting more train stations and trains? Can you make it so that if a German train starts at a rear station and makes it to the front line area station that more ground forces spawn at that front station as a convoy heading to a certain area on the front. Make the initial German forces on the front line very small in number but their numbers grow as more trains arrive and more convoys spawn in and head to the front? So red team has the ability to wipe out the front line forces easily if they keep their numbers small by wiping out the trains bringing in reinforcements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
12 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

More moving convoys would be grand too. Especially supply type stuff. I think something fun for the blue side to do is disrupt that redball express. Maybe red can enjoy hitting more train stations and trains? Can you make it so that if a German train starts at a rear station and makes it to the front line area station that more ground forces spawn at that front station as a convoy heading to a certain area on the front. Make the initial German forces on the front line very small in number but their numbers grow as more trains arrive and more convoys spawn in and head to the front? So red team has the ability to wipe out the front line forces easily if they keep their numbers small by wiping out the trains bringing in reinforcements.

 

In theory, yes, we can do a whole bunch of these things. There are a few practical limitations though:

  • Changing map iconography can lead to server 'hangs' so we try to do it as little as possible. The kind of dynamic stuff you're talking about would need some iconography to direct players and let them know what's happening.
  • More ground vehicles = more load on the server. Having said that, Closing of the Ruhr Pocket has something like 4 or 5 ground convoys all active at once, so it's possible to do the kind of thing you're talking about as long as we're careful to have a hard limit on the total amount of action.
  • Whatever we build needs to be understandable by players. Some of us read the mission briefing, but many don't, and something as simple as a capturable airfield with "destroy german defences!" next to it was apparently not obvious enough for some of our pilots... 😕
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
21 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

 

  • Whatever we build needs to be understandable by players. Some of us read the mission briefing, but many don't, and something as simple as a capturable airfield with "destroy german defences!" next to it was apparently not obvious enough for some of our pilots... 😕

My only question about that particular mechanic - does capturing the forward airfield by destroying defences in that situation count towards victory as an objective, or does it only open up the airfield for use by the allies? It does not seem 100% clear from the briefing. I have been working under the assumption that it does not count towards victory and directing my ground attack efforts elsewhere. Opening up the airfield is technically very useful since it reduces flight times to nearby targets, but it quickly becomes a furball with Axis fighters overhead. Often It's more useful as bait for kill-thirsty fighter pilots than as an actual airfield.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

My only question about that particular mechanic - does capturing the forward airfield by destroying defences in that situation count towards victory as an objective, or does it only open up the airfield for use by the allies? It does not seem 100% clear from the briefing. I have been working under the assumption that it does not count towards victory and directing my ground attack efforts elsewhere. Opening up the airfield is technically very useful since it reduces flight times to nearby targets, but it quickly becomes a furball with Axis fighters overhead. Often It's more useful as bait for kill-thirsty fighter pilots than as an actual airfield.

 

Allies get a half victory point for each airfield they capture. I agree that's not clear from the mission briefing, lemme put it on the list.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampfpilot_JG3

High Ping issues

i am experiencing high ping in this server frequently lately when months ago it never went red . Can someone pls give me tips on how to get it back to green . tks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_

NOTAM: Big changes for some longtime favourite maps!

 

Thanks to the new patch reworking the damage models, we've seen a marked shift in results of air-to-air and air-to-ground sorties from both sides. As you know we dynamically respond to winrates on the server and as a result we've made some larger-than-normal adjustments to the objective layouts on Y.29, Mitchell's Men, Eindhoven, Ruhr Pocket and Crossing the Rhine.

The main focus behind these changes has been to equalise the amount of time each side spends flying over their opponent's territory. It remains to be seen if this will drastically impact the outcome of the matches, but it should at the very least go some way to helping you survive if you get bounced on either side.

Many of our maps featured long flight times for Red heading out across Blue ground, and now objectives are requiring more accurate ordnance we felt it was only fair to try and balance out this aspect of the designs. Combat on some maps is being focused a little more so that players heading down the middle might find friendly cover more often, while the empty "sides" of the map are a little more usable in some cases for the sneaky types.

 

By balancing out the previously long travel times for Red, Blue will have to be a little more proactive in heading out to find Red attackers on their way to targets. Equally this gives Red slightly less ground to cover in CAP missions - now mostly focused on or behind the front line, while previous mission designs could send them 50-80km into Blue airspace just to clear the skies for their ground pounders.

 

We hope you enjoy the changes and the refreshed map designs. We tried not to be too drastic and redesign everything from scratch, but hope that the alterations we did make will cause the flow to be a little different to normal across large areas of the maps.

The changes will be going live in around an hour.

 

As always, thanks so much for playing everyone from the whole Combat Box team!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
7 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

NOTAM: Big changes for some longtime favourite maps!

 

We've updated all the maps and mission planner JSON files on our maps page, including high-resolution screen shots of the layouts and front lines: https://combatbox.net/en/maps/

 

These are now live, and we're emphasizing the updated maps in this weekend's map pool.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
MatthiasAlpha

Thought you were talking crazy at first but ‘nope’ the aircraft tech chat is now finally a difficulty setting. After all this time they finally did it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Will you disable tech chat for the server once the update is released?

 

Most likely no. We want CB to be friendly to newbies and it's the opinion of the admin team that tech chat helps them to a pretty large degree.

 

Second to that, without tech chat you can trigger an engine death timer by being just a few RPMs too high. This seems overly "gamey" and not realistic, so until engine timers are reworked tech chat has to stay.

Edited by Talon_
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
=EXPEND=Tripwire
10 hours ago, Talon_ said:

Most likely no. We want CB to be friendly to newbies and it's the opinion of the admin team that tech chat helps them to a pretty large degree.

 

Second to that, without tech chat you can trigger an engine death timer by being just a few RPMs too high. This seems overly "gamey" and not realistic, so until engine timers are reworked tech chat has to stay.

 

I respect your decision regarding the first sentence there, but I see this "1%" and "few RPMs" part far too often and feel that this is a bit over the top representation of what occurs in game when people actually fly without techno chat and are familiar with their planes engine limits.

 

In my opinion there I feel that there is actually a reasonable amount of buffer you have as a pilot available to you unless you are actually being overly "gamey" and not realistic and trying to sit right on the limit of the engine combat/emergency settings rather than following the instructions on the specifications sheet. Sure, the engine death timer could be handled better but I don't think its as bad as a lot of people make it out to be.

Edited by =EXPEND=Tripwire
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
3 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

trying to sit right on the limit of the engine combat/emergency settings rather than following the instructions on the specifications sheet.

 

That's not "gamey" at all. Spitfires for example had physically gated throttle quadrants to allow pilots to sit at the top of each setting without needing to look at their gauges.

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
=EXPEND=Tripwire

Fair point. Lets hope we get some type of gated dead zone in the throttle movement arc then for planes that had it.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TU=flynvrtd

I already have a pretty good idea as to how this post will be received...

But, I will say it anyway. 

The most recent map changes are going to cause a drop in numbers for the server...

Based on the discord voice comms I heard last night, from dedicated blue mud movers.

The admins might consider giving the red Chuck Yeager types AI targets to shoot at.

The consensus is as I've stated in the past. 

You are theoretically making it easier for the reds to win objectives and maps by making it easier for them to get to targets. 

Thing is, THE REDS DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING BUT POINT DEFENSE OF THEIR  ASSETS TO RACK UP FIGHTER SCORES.

True, there is a number of the blues content to do the same.. but nothing like what I've seen from the reds on a consistent basis.

Why are you spoon feeding this group on the server?

 I'm really past the point of giving half a shit anymore...

I'll just keep on and giggle at the silliness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
4 minutes ago, flynvrtd said:

You are theoretically making it easier for the reds to win objectives and maps by making it easier for them to get to targets. 

 

Based on the data we picked up so far red are hitting more ground targets than before, so it looks like the changes are working.

 

Most of the maps heavily favoured Blue by design as we put them together when Red was super oversubscribed. The changes just equalise out the amount of time each side has to spend over the front line along with the area they have to cover.

 

Thanks to the new DM we don't have to artificially lower the difficulty for Blue anymore as we have done since September last year, so as you can see from some of the pics attached, that's what we've stopped doing!

 

unknown-2.png

unknown-3.png

23 minutes ago, flynvrtd said:

but nothing like what I've seen from the reds on a consistent basis.

 

I just thought to have a look, and I see that you have 4 Red sorties on CB since we launched. I mostly fly Red, while the other three admins are all about 75% blue since January. We are also split across a number of timezones. I think you're probably seeing a small window based on Blue team chat during your most active hours if I'm honest because our data doesn't support this at all.

 

We fly all sides and we're looking for a balanced environment for everyone to enjoy their favourite planes. It's not about showing favouritism to any group or side, we're working off the data we have. Axis have won 3 of the 4 complete tours so far this year despite fewer flight hours and are looking likely to win the current one, so it's hard to argue that we haven't been structurally favouring them (aside from the fact we're literally saying "oh and we designed the maps to make it easier for Blue in the first instance"). 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
1 hour ago, flynvrtd said:

You are theoretically making it easier for the reds to win objectives and maps by making it easier for them to get to targets. 

Thing is, THE REDS DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING BUT POINT DEFENSE OF THEIR  ASSETS TO RACK UP FIGHTER SCORES.

True, there is a number of the blues content to do the same.. but nothing like what I've seen from the reds on a consistent basis.

Why are you spoon feeding this group on the server?

 

I think making blanket claims like "reds only want to fly fighters and point-defend their objectives" is never going to actually be true. It totally depends on who gets online for a particular map, what their mindset is, and how the map progresses (I can imagine if it's obviously a loss, like you're down by 3 objectives, people would go fighter mode and skip the bombing).

 

The changes we've made are not about spoon feeding the reds. They're correcting structural issues with the maps. We had several maps where the flight times for red were way higher than for blue, and red needed to venture much further into enemy territory than blue. We've tried to correct that. If there are maps where you feel the layout is unfair to one or the other, we're happy to hear specific criticism. If there are targets that seem to die too easily (or are too hard) again we're happy to hear specific criticism.

 

We don't make changes at random. We discussed them all as a team, tried several different redesigns, and I spent most of my free time this week implementing things so we could make a splash by changing a bunch of maps all at once. We're keeping a close eye on the outcomes, not just in terms of win rates but also who flies what, who gets what air kills, etc.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
VR-DriftaholiC

I would like to say, I hope that Combat Box will disable techno-chat. I will definitely be spending my time on severs with this disabled. 

Edited by driftaholic
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnacles
10 hours ago, flynvrtd said:

I already have a pretty good idea as to how this post will be received...

But, I will say it anyway. 

The most recent map changes are going to cause a drop in numbers for the server...

Based on the discord voice comms I heard last night, from dedicated blue mud movers.

The admins might consider giving the red Chuck Yeager types AI targets to shoot at.

The consensus is as I've stated in the past. 

You are theoretically making it easier for the reds to win objectives and maps by making it easier for them to get to targets. 

Thing is, THE REDS DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING BUT POINT DEFENSE OF THEIR  ASSETS TO RACK UP FIGHTER SCORES.

True, there is a number of the blues content to do the same.. but nothing like what I've seen from the reds on a consistent basis.

Why are you spoon feeding this group on the server?

 I'm really past the point of giving half a shit anymore...

I'll just keep on and giggle at the silliness.

For science, you should try flying red ground attack a couple of time and see how it goes.

For what it's worth I agree with you, when you fly blue ground attack you run into a lot of 51s and tempests when you get your bombs away.

 

Any data which could show Alonzo that a group of the same people ground attacking found it so much easier to destroy the blue objectives compared to the red objectives would surely mean that the admins would stop the process of making it easier for the allies

Link to post
Share on other sites
CIA_Yankee_
1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

For science, you should try flying red ground attack a couple of time and see how it goes.

For what it's worth I agree with you, when you fly blue ground attack you run into a lot of 51s and tempests when you get your bombs away.

 

To be fair, I fly red ground attack all the time, and I run into a lot of 109s and 190s when I get my bombs away. :)

 

This is not a Red phenomenon, nor a blue one. Lots of people on both sides like to focus on flying CAP on objectives, and attackers get pounced on all the time. Which side does so more than the other, I think, owes much more to those factors Alonzo mentioned in his post. It depends on the map, the player mindsets, and the situation at the moment.

 

So for example, on the old Y-29 I imagine very few red attacked, because most targets were deep in enemy territory and easy to defend, so obviously most red players flew CAP (I rarely flew it, because I knew striking was mostly suicide, and CAPping all the time gets boring). Likewise, if a map is a loss, there's little point in attacking, so might as well CAP.

 

This is why, of course, balance changes are important. The important point to remember is that what the players do is _heavily_ influenced by the mission design. Make it hard for bombing, less people will bomb. Give one side the better fighter or bomber planeset, more people will fly fighters or bombers on that side. The tendencies that we see in the player base (be it one side outnumbering another all the time, or one side flying just fighters, and so on) emerge organically in large part from the mission design, not due to some strange hive mind decision from that side.

 

And this is why changes like these are _very_ important, and needed to rectify the clear imbalance we've seen in the last months.

 

Let us not forget:

 

5e173317fe3a07152f34e556c1e3fcbe.jpg

 

:)

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Birdman
12 hours ago, flynvrtd said:

...snip...

You should fly red and see what it's like.

 

You are complaining of a map re-balance to correct blue favoring (as per the map makers no less). You sound entitled (to whatever you thought you were entitled to).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents,

 

As I witnessed with CLOD, servers will come and go! Most servers start off being very accommodating to player's 'wants and needs' and as their popularity grows, so does the sense of  invincibility and the belief that they can do and treat players as they wish as it is 'their server, their rules'. 

 

I for one certainly welcome any changes in this server that are made to ensure balance, however, this is a game of 2 camps and as such both camps need to be managed carefully as without one, there is no game!   For those who mock others for speaking out for raising their views (some times difficult for non-English speakers to express themselves) or tell these individuals to start their own servers if they don't like it, or go elsewhere, I would say be careful what you wish for! I'm sure I'm not the only player who, like a moth to the flame, will log on to the most populated server, so I would question how loyal most players really are to a server!

 

Therefore, I for one hope that the revised balancing in CB works, as without 2 sides, there is no game and after all, this is only a PC game! However, only time will tell!

 

Regards

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_Stick-95

This is odd.  Maybe you could check this sortie.

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/623414/?tour=22

 

I ripped apart someone as the summary hits show, they bailed immediately, but there is no victory and the details shows no hits on anyone.  Other squad mates witnessed this.

 

Even at the end of the sortie the end of mission message had no kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
8 minutes ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

This is odd.  Maybe you could check this sortie.

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/623414/?tour=22

 

I ripped apart someone as the summary hits show, they bailed immediately, but there is no victory and the details shows no hits on anyone.  Other squad mates witnessed this.

 

Even at the end of the sortie the end of mission message had no kill.

 

Do you have a track file at all? Were you recording?

Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_Stick-95
3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Do you have a track file at all? Were you recording?

 

No, unfortunately I do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Faucon

To mission maker(s): On Closing of the Ruhr pocket map, seems there is no NDB on Ettinghausen AF. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sketch

FNF_5_15_A20_FormationTurn.thumb.png.b079eae6c136106f982f6915a5c5cc63.png

FRIDAY NIGHT FLIGHTS!

Date:  May 22nd, 2020

Time:  9pm EST - 11pm EST (1am GMT - 3am GMT)

Side: ALLIED RED TEAM

Server: Combat Box Dogfight Server

Mission: A Bridge Too Far

Coms: srs.combatbox.net

 

SIGN UP LINK

 

 

 

SKINS REPO FOR FnF

SRS RADIO INSTALLATION LINK

HOW TO SETUP SRS RADIO

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Late in 1944, the Allies seem to have the upper hand in the European land war. A combined British and American paratrooper force, led by American general Gavin and British general Urquhart, plans to take a highway leading from the Netherlands into Germany, so that British ground troops led by Lieutenant General Horrocks and Lieutenant Colonel Vandeleur can enter enemy territory. But the Allies soon learn that they may be overconfident...

 

This Friday, we fly for the Americans in Operation Market Garden that took place on September 17th through September 25th, 1944. We’ll support the Allied push to the bridges, and maybe rewrite history. 

 

Friday Night Flights is an event hosted on Combat Box’s Dogfight server, every Friday, and is for registered participants only. To register, you only need to fill out the registration form on the link provided above, and the algorithm will place you into a squad based on your selection. Over the last three weeks, we have had over 20 participants each week! 

 

As always, signing up gets you all the great things Friday Night Flights is known for:

  • A cool mission briefing before the event,
  • SRS Radio channel for each flight and flight leaders,
  • Structured mission objectives where pilots attempt to stay alive,
  • Cool skins to help identify flights,
  • and much more!

 

See you guys Friday at 9pm Eastern, and don't forget to sign up!

Link to post
Share on other sites
III/JG52_Al-Azraq
On 5/17/2020 at 1:05 AM, driftaholic said:

I would like to say, I hope that Combat Box will disable techno-chat. I will definitely be spending my time on severs with this disabled. 

 

Yes please! I hope it gets disabled as well so we start using our plane's instruments more.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...